|
VikingSkull posted:30-60 minutes outside of NYC there are hicks that would scare the guys from Deliverance. Plus having potentially tens of millions of personal vehicles coming at you ANFO'd up the wazoo. Then they'd have to try and pry out their conscripts out of every store carrying blue jeans. Which is why these scenarios never work.
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2011 03:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Seeing as we're probably talking early 80's I'd be making GBS threads my pants as an A-10 pilot coming up against every radar-guided SHORAD platform a Soviet motorized rifle or guards tank regiment can throw at me while SEAD/DEAD are duking it out over the Elbe and Oder bridges. Even then they'd be lucky flying fly pop-up profiles in central Germany seeing as every low-flying asset in the north would either be hitting power lines or eyeballed from any church tower closer than five miles away.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2011 18:04
|
|
|
adskip posted:Interesting stuff on Red Storm Rising. I'd be curious to know your opinions on other Cold War WWIII books like Team Yankee. I remember how I loved to read Harold Coyle as a kid but never really read him as an adult and I wonder how well his stuff stands up. It's decent at the tactical level but his operational scenario is based on Hackett's WWIII book which has a pretty dumb political edge to it. Red Army by Ralph Peters is better than any of the titles mentioned above.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
It's more of a doctrinal and technological question I think. By the time Soviet gun-launched ATGMs started to proliferate there already were a lot of TOW/MILAN/Swingfire etc. launchers available with most NATO forces. Infantry-carried and dedicated vehicle mounted ones might have been more suited for Western defensive tactics while the Red Army had to make up for a relative deficiency in long range gunning accuracy. ATGMs were pretty mature and might have required pretty simple training which was more accessible to the bulk of their conscripted forces ("the autoloader has loaded the missile and we've got a clear sight, after you pull the trigger, just keep pointing the reticle at the tank Vanya, no need to correct for distance, movement or wind"). I'm working from memory here but varying from unit to unit and platform to platform problems with gun accuracy were influenced by slightly cruder sights, less training with live rounds, comparatively suboptimal long-rod penetrator design which led to lower flight speeds and consequently a larger dropoff over distance which hurts accuracy (the design compromises were themselves an outgrowth of materials shortage for APFSDS manufacturing), less widespread access to laser range finders etc. Koesj fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Oct 23, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2011 03:09
|
|
|
Team Yankee is decent but the war seems way too drawn out. Crossing into the GDR on D+18? Bitch puh-lease you wouldn't have had any ammo left. Then there is the problem of Coyle basing his tactical outlook on Hackett's strategic vision in 'World War III: the untold story", a book which has a lot of problems. Red Army by Ralph Peters is the best WWIII porn out there if only for the reason that it's written from the Red perspective and captures the speed and intensity of mechanized warfare very well. Oh and the Soviets actually achieve a limited victory in Red Army. I'm in the process of developing an early 80s WWIII scenario with a friend of mine, it'll center around Dutch forces fighting a delaying action from the Elbe back towards Bremen and across the Weser. We already did a nice fact-finding mission on the Lüneburger Heide and went to the Panzermuseum in Munster. Anyone got some random suggestions for going forward with this? What would you guys like to see/read in a WWIII setting?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2011 18:06
|
|
|
Here's a really good effortpost on Cold War submarine development in the US: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/cold-war-asw.html
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2011 00:28
|
|
|
Longish post on Red Army incoming...Remulak posted:Aha, a visit to Wikipedia tells me that this is the same guy that wrote the famous "Dude, Where's My Civil War?" piece, claiming there was no civil war in Iraq. In 2006. Sure, still, Red Army was written in '89. quote:Of course they achieve limited victory - it was flat-out propaganda to show the need to increase defense funding, because THIS IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF YOU DON'T. Dunno, I wasn't in any position to judge this back in '89. When reading it first a couple of years ago I just took the book as purely a work of fiction and not beholden to any political position. quote:Also note that the American sectors were the only ones that did well against the damned Ruskies, those perfidious eurofags surrendered and gave them just what they wanted. I haven't got the book around right now but if I'm not mistaken the NATO conscript armies actually held their own in their sectors (Dutch 1 Korps and German I. Korps) and a breakthrough was forced in the (non-conscript) British Army on the Rhine (BAOR) sector of the NATO Northern Army Group (NORTHAG). Peters describes a Soviet feint across the Lüneburger Heide while simultaneously stacking up 3rd Shock Army (Group of Soviet Forces Germany (GSFG)) Tank divisions to rapidly break through British lines along the Salzgitter - Hildesheim axis towards the Weserbergland. This works pretty well in a wargame environment (TOAW, HPS Modern Campaigns) and Peters didn't have access to any of those resources back then so I was pretty impressed with this particular part of his scenario. The book centers around GSFG operations against NORTHAG anyway while all tripwire US forces were stationed in CENTAG (Central Army Group) up until somewhere in the late 80's when the forward based 3rd Corps Brigade was added into the Northern mix (still a pretty inconsequential force). Force disposition, terrain and logistics would have made a push into American (and BRD) defended Central Germany a lot harder anyway, It's lovely tank country south of the A44. So I don't think it's unrealistic to see a WWIII book having the Soviets rapidly advance in the north while stalling everywhere else. The 'magical' aspect of the US Army appearance towards the end wouldn't have been too far off the mark either seeing as the US 3rd Corps would have drawn their prepositioned stocks and been laying somewhere deep in the rear behind the Weser. What follows in the book is a meeting engagement where a lot goes wrong for the Soviets but I didn't feel like these sudden defeats were solely of an American making. Had there been a British Corps in the waiting, or big non-reserve German, Dutch or Belgian formations, that particular battle might have had a similar outcome. Then again, entire fresh divisions with large organic rotary assets and ICM rocket artillery, a full TO&E of state of the art MBT's and AFV's, contract soldiers and a highly professional NCO corps, being flown in fresh out of NTC rotations and such, drawing gear in mint condition... that's a mix no other NATO army could provide at that particular moment in such a conflict. That's why I feel the books conclusion still works on a strategic level: Forward defense fails, second and third echelon Soviet forces are hitting deep into Germany, assaulting into old farts in crummy reserve outfits (who by the way are a country's wage-earners and household patrons) while top of the line US formations (really the only good ones left) get to pick and choose their engagements against a backdrop of quick nuclear escalation. Hence a peacenik copout by West-German leadership. quote:I read that whole book with my teeth gritted internally arguing with the guy. The problem is he's a better writer than Clancy so his bullshit is more insidious. Have you got more specific points on where you felt Peters dropped the ball? Koesj fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Nov 9, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Speaking of terrible designs, I was reading a book about the "Red Eagles", US servicemen who flew "acquired" MiGs as part of training USAF/USN/USMC pilots. I got Red Eagles a while ago, good read. This was after going through the whole book discussion on the Keypublishing Forum though where Some guys with direct access to former -23 operators were pitching in on US 'hot rod' pilots/maintainers who didn't know their poo poo while constantly harping on the author for not publishing a glowing account on Soviet gear instead of a book on the Constant Peg program within its own historical context  They've still got a point though. Although you can only commend the guys in the 4477th for running such a ballsy program I'd gather their operating procedures were far removed from optimal VVS/PVO practices not to mention things like depot support and OEM access.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2011 03:35
|
|
|
TheNakedJimbo posted:Edit: Have an airpower photo for the top of the page: Here's even more for all your jetfighter/furfic slash: http://www.natotigers.org/
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Such as? Here's something the Brits did in the seventies. It's only an MRV solution more or less but then again Pershing II already had MARV covered in that timeframe. I'd guess these things can be combined into one system these days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevaline
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
movax posted:If this fell, Soviet submarines would go surging into the North Atlantic and go to town on any ship unfortunate enough to be carrying materiel to the EU. Pretty big plot point in Red Storm Rising as well, if I recall. Why would it fall? I just finished rereading RSR (or for the time in English anyway) and that idiot Clancy has Keflavik AB only manned by an F-15 squadron and some E-3s. Place would have been absolutely buzzing after Day M+7. Both USAF and ANG could easily deploy and how about there being no naval presence to stop a silly 'LCACs from a container ship'-plot?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
grover posted:It takes time to deploy squadrons and their support; ... Net result: Iceland would pretty much be hanging out there on its own. iyaayas01 posted:...The U.S. military is ALWAYS short of airlift. Let's move this enlightening discussion away from RSR a little bit and more into general timetables and logistics, which is something I've had a big interest in the last couple of months (more or less because of reading about Nifty Nugget). Clancy has the war starting with REFORGER 'not yet complete' which would mean that the General Defense Plan is already in being executed for I'd gather at least 5~7 days (which is what I meant with M+7). This makes sense since overall Soviet progress is pretty slow for a month long war and dug in NATO forces with ample warning of impending conflict are a prerequisite for that. Strategic airlift and the CRAF would probably have been swamped by REFORGER so my first question is how the USAF planned to get their planes into Europe anyway. Keflavik is a little more than 1500 miles way from CFB Goose Bay, which was a pretty big base up until a few years ago. Iceland would be a prime spot to use to shift forces to Norway (some attack squadrons and at least one division were earmarked IIRC) so it'd double up as a logistical pivot as well as the linchpin of naval and aerial defense in the G-I-UK area. Could you support both ground and air deployments towards NATO's northern edge with tactical airlift with multiple stopovers? Some general thoughts: Clancy messes up NATO's reinforcement plans by having Iceland dither committing to the alliance. In '99 there were a couple of unauthorized overflights of neutral Austria around and during Allied Force. Why not ignore the protestations of an unwilling ally with no ability to enforce their reservations? Hell, if such a thing had happened in one of the continental countries during a crisis I really don't think there would have been any scruples to pull off some Gladioesque capers to get the minnows in line. REFORGER only adds another couple divisions to the mix which need some time to gather up their strength and numbers with troops arriving jetlagged from a wrong-way transatlantic flight and prepositioned stocks scattered over three different countries. What's more important is when and how both the West-German Territorialheer and the French are deploying, which is dependent more on the Soviet timetable than anything else really. First echelon forces in the GDR are probably not going to wait for both a first-line American armored corps building up as a strategic reserve, the BRD getting another half a million people in position and countries like Belgium and the Netherlands pulling off some highly intricate mobilization plans to get their forces out of maldeployment without having railway flatcars on their own or enough prepositioned stocks. Either strike from the barracks with the forces you have or don't do it at all. Since even GSFG units were never really that prepared, and NATO always scaled up their readiness with large exercises on the other side of the fence, there has never been a window of opportunity large enough for the Soviets to exploit. That and not wanting to have their cities nuked of course.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
Phanatic is on the ball with what's actually in the book, which doesn't mean Clancy is right about ASW though since they're all just framing devices for the super awesome ship and boat drivers that make the Navy so cool.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
Haha it seems even this forum has now been exposed to Sparky's madness on combatreform.org. This guy was hounded off of Tank-Net trying to sell his silly battleship reactivation plans and trying to have people refer to the M113 APC as the Gavin in honor of an airborne general (and the fact that the US should be airdropping tracked vehicles from cargo planes). Any reference to the M113 by that name pretty much comes from him, it was a bit of a farce when some sites and even wikipedia fell for it for a while.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
I'm doing some research on postwar military aircraft development and there's two 1/1000 reference sheets I've been working on, here's the first: This one's about fighters/interceptors with naval aviation in blue and carrier adapted aircraft in violet. I've spread them out over 5 generations with a rough horizontal chronology and vertical spread by range and task going on. There are some experimental and even untried designs in there, can you guys spot them? Alternate quiz: name all aircraft  Anyone got some tips on how to correct some things, what color the F/A-18 needs for example or whether or not Sweden deserves its own flag. There's also some missing aircraft, most probably in the earlier generations or form smaller countries so which ones did I miss out on? I mostly did this for myself to get a macro view on what the trends were by the way. It was cool to see point defense fighter-interceptors being built across the board in the late fifties (which isn't that much of an obscure fact but it's neat) and everyone save the US having a eurocanard design going on in the eighties.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
Sure. It would take some time though since the lay-out needs to be tightened. Here's the other one btw.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2012 21:48
|
|
|
Psion posted:I'm serious - looking at how many fighters Saab has produced since 1950 vs. an entire continent's worth of aerospace industry? It's impressive. You're absolutely right, the EU flag is a holdover from when I had some other projects still in there (SEPECAT, PANAVIA and the G-91) which I later moved around or just took out (because who gives a gently caress about repurposed trainer aircraft). Cyrano4747 posted:You should also get bored and do similar things for IFVs, small arms, etc. Nahh the thing with aircraft is that you can easily get their outlines from sites like these (baller site), make work paths out of them in PS and put all of it together in illustrator. AFVs need more than only outlines to be able to discern them and I'm just not that into small arms. quote:They're actually really neat resources for visualizing what the gently caress is going on with different generations of equipment. Yeah that's exactly what I was aiming for. Just look at all those parallel developments going on between and even inside countries, or the duplication of capabilities over both naval and land-based designs before ca. 1975. Really avoiding finishing up my thesis here to just concentrate on stuff like this for non-sensical reasons
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:One general thought that applies to both...you need a shade for aircraft that were originally carrier aircraft and were then adapted for land based use. The first ones that come to mind would be the F-4 and A-7. You should also probably have a different color for both the F-35 and the Rafale since they were intended for both carrier and land based use since the start of their respective projects. I'm still tweaking the color codes so nothing is final yet. Already had the 106 in there and kinda not wanted to add the 102 since it wasn't a great design. I agree about the F-14 being an almost pure interceptor at the outset but I'm not sure about the F-15, more air-superiority than interceptor and where to put it in comparison to the eurocanards (multirole) or the Su-27 (used for pretty much anything on a shoe-string Russian budget)? I'm def. adding the Su-34 and F-15E and the Jag is already in. Not sure about the 2000N/D since I've already got the 2k as a multirole fighter on the A-A side of things. Forgot to add the Q-5 somewhere. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2012 23:21
|
|
|
Yeah I was a bit on the fence about adding the Skyray, mostly for lay-out reasons, but since it seems it was an interceptor too I can easily add it in there. I had the idea of having the ADV show on the fighter page with the wings extended and the IDS on the air to ground page fully swept to change things up. Hadn't gotten to it yet. Note how the Tornado is a lot smaller than both the Su-24 and the F-111. It really seems like the Brits got burnt on the TSR2 and lowered their expectations. I didn't really notice those kind of things before starting on this reference sheet. e: I'm still missing the Superbug but there's no decent planview out there which I can easily adapt into an outline (top view w/ a clear canopy, F version most wanted).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
Nnnnnoooooo  e: Uploaded it as a .pdf Koesj fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Jan 30, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
Flikken posted:Shouldn't the Typhoon be with the European aircraft and not the British? Pablo Bluth posted:I know, I know. Taking out the human cargo robs aircraft of all its romanticism. But as least Koesj posted:the EU flag is a holdover from when I had some other projects still in there (SEPECAT, PANAVIA and the G-91) which I later moved around or just took out (because who gives a gently caress about repurposed trainer aircraft). I'm still a bit torn on adding atrue EU row, might as well toss all European aircraft in. Mind you I reflagged it as Swedish in the .pdf version. Putting in the Hawk would mean having to add a whole load of comparable aircraft. I'd rather take the Gnat out were it not for the excellent job it seemed to have done for the Indians against Pakistan.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2012 02:10
|
|
can afford to make them! We got out of the solo game following the Hawker Siddeley Hawk; the Tornado and Eurofighter ought to be removed from us and put in a Euro-collaboration row.
|
Long-rear end post.jwoven posted:MiG23 should be paired with the 27, since they are mostly the same. Even the -23BN ground attack 'version' had a wholly different nose assembly, engine, subsystems and strengthened areas compared to the air-to-air -23s (this is the one that was exported). After they changed the intakes and shaved off excess weight to simplify the plane, since it had a pretty straightforward attack role (plus adding more armor and strengthening it again), the Soviets themselves introduced it as a new type. Mind you this inside a system that called the Backfire 'Tu-22M' even though it had almost nothing in common with the earlier Blinder. I've got one sheet with fighters and one sheet with ground attack planes and even the Tornado is split up in two versions right now. I'd say the MiG-23/27 difference is big enough to justify two entries within my current split. Otherwise I'll have to rethink the whole thing again. quote:Sukhoi's other planes too: SU11, SU24, SU25 I've got the Su-9 in there of which the Su-11 is a modification within the same timeframe and with the same role, I guess I could name them Su-9/11 (wait that doesn't look right). The other two are in there  quote:China had the J2 (aka MiG15), J5 (aka MiG17), J6 (aka MiG19) I'd venture to say that the earlier Chinese planes were mostly copies of the Soviet models while their big push into independent developments started happening around the Sino-Soviet split. The models transferred from the USSR were already out of date in '61 and the bulk of indigenous work on the J-6 was done to transform it into the Q-5. With the MiG-21 handover in '62 they received design documents and possibly some complete aircraft as a Soviet gesture towards peace after their first clashes and the Chinese did a lot of work to troubleshoot it in quite some ways. Afterwards it was in production until 2008 and is still used by over a dozen countries. quote:Israel is missing. Namely, the Nesher (aka Mirage 5) and Kfir. Good call, I could add the Lavi too as yet another example of an eighties Eurocanard project. Then again, even the Kfir was mostly a modernization project and a way around the French embargos. Plus, if I added these aircraft I should probably throw in the South African Mirage projects too (and another canard project with the Atlas Carver). Not stoked about having to abandon my current lay-out, but, planes like the Japanese F-1 and F-2 and the Korean and Taiwanese F-16 facsimiles are missing too. helno posted:You should get rid of all the designs that never actually flew. Now to both this and what I gather is the gist of jwoven's post I can only say one thing: the point of my current setup is to get more of a general view of aircraft development. I've only added the flags and type names for easy viewing by others. My goal was to be able to discern both parallel projects with comparable outcomes in different countries and major divergences in design philosophies. For example: - Almost every country came up with a stovepive design for their immediate post-war fighter aircraft except for the british who kept going along with updated Meteor and Vampire versions until the Hunter was introduced in the early fifties. - American as well as French early supersonic fighters continuing the lineage of earlier aircraft in name (Super Sabre/Mystère) with both being relatively quickly relegated to a fighter bomber role when new planes came out of the breakneck-speed fifties pipeline. - The MiG-15 to 21 having the same design bureau working on successively more advanced aircraft by slowly reducing wing sweep but retaining similar size and, supposedly, simplicity. - Point defense fighters being a really hot thing in the late fifties/early sixties with every country bringing a short-legged fast-climbing aircraft into service. - Dedicated interceptors dwindling in importance after more and more fighters were able to adapt to this role except for: A. The existence of the Soviet PVO as a dedicated Air Defense branch and B. Naval interceptors (or in the case of the UK, over-water interceptors) remaining relevant. Hell, the Tornado ADV supposedly only got off the ground after the Brits decided that the F-14 was too expensive for their tastes! - Massive duplication going on between land-based and naval designs in both the US and the UK up until the latter gave up their catapult carriers. Even the McNamara trend of multi-service designs (F-4, F-111) hasn't broken this tradition. - The Soviets on the other hand had always planned to just adapt existing planes for naval uses, first with the MiG-23K in their abortive early seventies carrier project and later with the Mig-29K and Su-27K. The latter won out at first but now they'll be changing to the MiG together with the Indian order that came in a couple of years ago, have to have a decent maintenance base. - The first swing-wing plane designed to be a jack of all trades but ending up too heavy (F-111) and living life as a dedicated Strike aircraft. The Su-24 looks like an exact carbon copy (it ain't) and the Brits got burnt on the non variable sweep but still very expensive TSR-2. When the F-111K didn't turn out to be all that they started again with the Anglo-French Variable Geometry, had a falling out with Dassault internally pushing the Mirage G and ended up with the Germans and Italians with the Tornado. These things are all, like, connected man. - In a really roundabout way the A/F X (mislabeled both as the A/F XX and a dedicated naval aircraft by me, oops) was an abortive early nineties attempt to build both an F-111 and eventual F-15E/F-117 replacement and as a follow-on to the A-6 on the Navy side after the A-12 got cancelled and an outgrowth of the Naval ATF program (navalized F-22/F-23). The design team was later folded into the JAST office which became the JSF. - Yes the JSF is basically the new F-111. There's tons more of these kinds of things: Eurocanards for all, Mach 2,5+ interceptors, the return of dedicated attack aircraft, why aren't the Intruder and the Buccanneer the same plane, the Soviets having large-rear end antiship bombers (with even their XB-70 copy having this role), STOVL aircraft - or - where Yakovlev really showed their true colors, the French always going for it alone, Sweden, runoffs between competing designs in the US after McNamara (I need to add the A9). Some of those things you only take into view after having it laid out there, or at least for me it feels that way, and clinging to this arbitrary classification helped me out a ton. Please correct me where I'm wrong. PS: I had the Avro Arrow in there and really want to put it back in, only place is in the UK line-up though haha so the Canuck flag has to go lie down somewhere 
Koesj fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Jan 30, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2012 04:46
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Actual content: slight correction, the "MiG 4.12" should actually be 1.42 or 1.44 ... Woops I missed out on sperging over this post. The MiG ЛФИ (PRL) 4.12 is the single-engined, MiG-29 replacing offshoot of the MFI project and was started somewhere in '86 I think. I don't really like the S-37 and 1.42/44 projects since the Flanker has proven to have so much growth potential that these planes feel kinda superfluous. Do remember that the original canard fighter projects, the ECF and the Gripen, both started in the late seventies with design work done in the early eighties. No concrete ATF influence back then and depending on US disclosure they probably either didn't know about HAVE BLUE or didn't believe in a working faceted design (the latter being a bit more likely since this was going on in Germany). The ATB (which evolved into the B-2) was most def. off bounds. Koesj fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Jan 30, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2012 05:39
|
|
|
Looks like the Rafale is lined up to win the Indian MMRCA bid.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2012 14:58
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:I regard the MV-22 in a much better light than the F-35; it's a deathtrap, sure, but at least it's a useful deathtrap. It hasn't been a deathtrap since they got the big problems out of the way though
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2012 15:43
|
|
|
BAC 221 e: had the reply window open before you posted, while searching, so I still feel like a winner  Was looking at Fairey Deltas first, overlooked the little blurb on wiki about the 221 rebuild and spent another 20 minutes until I finally found it. What's up with the 1438? Koesj fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Feb 24, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2012 15:59
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:poo poo, I KNEW I'd seen that before somewhere. Definitely wouldn't have gotten it without the hint, though. The ogival delta together with the sixties aerodynamics gives it away, couldn't have been anything else than a prototype connected to Concorde.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
fuf posted:Actually the guy that made it got the order of operations wrong and thought the answer was 1898. Whether that has any more significance as an answer than 1438 I'm not sure. Yeah I figured he got the math messed up. http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2009/03/united-1898-cleveland-airport-mystery.html
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
fuf posted:Wait sorry I meant 1892 not 1898. Yeah that seemed kinda off. 1892 is Richthofen's DOB.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2012 17:39
|
|
|
They've got one of those over at the Panzermuseum in Munster. Thing is a dinky toy even compared to WWII tracked vehicles. Extremely low profile.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:To add to this, it's been mentioned before, but the G-I-UK gap was a really big loving deal during the Cold War given all the convoys that would have to flow during any sort of shooting war in Western Europe, Why wait for that when you're some Stavka planning boffin? Just fight with what you have.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2012 17:11
|
|
|
Myoclonic Jerk posted:I think the convoys in this case would be NATO convoys from North America. I don't think the Pact was planning on doing a lot of shipping. Yeah no poo poo but why wait for NATO to build up if your best forces are already garrisoned in the right places and numbers are already favoring you 2:1. That's what I was getting at. And yeah the Kola peninsula was home to the northern fleet. Koesj fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Mar 1, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2012 17:53
|
|
|
Manning... and I'm talking about the kind that's actually damaging US readiness not the mope they've got locked up.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2012 12:33
|
|
|
NosmoKing: That close to each other?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2012 13:42
|
|
|
fuf posted:Not necessarily. During the Falklands War the British were pretty careful about not attacking the Argentinian mainland. With what would they have done that back in '82 exactly? Not really proportionate to go and nuke airbases over a couple of rocks. Volley off a couple of TLAMs and no-one would bat an eye, they've been an accepted foreign policy tool for decades now 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2012 14:25
|
|
|
Dudes we're talking about BMP-1s with fuel tanks in their rear doors 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
Imma reply to a post from somewhere on the last couple of pages because this thread suddenly moved fast as hell BUT: Greece operates BMP-1Vs, some Tor-M1s and a shitload of Shilkas. As well as the assorted ATGMs and lotsa RPG-18s.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:You gotta love old Soviet propaganda - I like the guys at 1:05 who are running down a hill, hip firing their AK's for the camera. I do hope they used blanks. As for the era, T-72s, Mig 23s and Hind Ds makes me want to say mid 70s? I'm pretty sure we're seeing later model T-62s from 0:44 onwards (Obr. 1972 with the DShK machine gun?) and T-64As with the 'gill' side armor at around 2:00 so depending on how much they wanted to show of their then high tech vehicles I'd say the vid could have been shot anywhere from around 1972 till the late seventies.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2012 14:15
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:60 million [SEK, probably not inflation adjusted] was invested in buildings and equipment during the five year period of 1950-55. I guess that'd be around 1 billion SEK only adjusted for inflation but that's still not that big of a number. Of course as a share of GDP it'd be much higher than 1b SEK in today's economy but it's just another indicator of how much cheaper aircraft development used to be.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Myoclonic Jerk posted:Thanks - I really appreciate hearing about the little detail stuff of being a tank crewman - things like how the gun actually aims that you can't get from a set of technical specs. I'd recommend the ol' Steel Beasts for PC for a more insidery look.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2012 02:09
|
|